Monthly State Update: MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN 2004

(as of 12/31/2004)

This update summarizes legislation that
has passed at least one house of the legislature, executive branch
actions and judicial decisions. Entries are organized by the following
topical areas. Within each topic, entries are listed alphabetically
by state; actions for the current month are in bold. For an archive
of previous monthly updates click here.

In March,
the GEORGIA House passed a
measure that would authorize Choose Life license plates. Funds generated
from the sale of the plates would support crisis pregnancy centers
and nonprofit adoption agencies, and would be prohibited from supporting
agencies that refer women for abortions. If the measure is enacted,
the state would have to receive 1,000 applications before the plate
could go into production. The legislature has now adjourned for
the year.

In February, the KENTUCKY
Senate passed a bill to create Choose Life license plates. If the
measure is enacted, proceeds from the sale of the plates would be
distributed to organizations that counsel women on the option of
adoption. The legislature has now adjourned for the year.

In November,
a federal district court blocked enforcement of OKLAHOMA's
\x91choose life' license plate law and barred the state from
distributing funds raised by sale of the plates. Under the law,
proceeds from the plates would have been distributed to organizations
that counsel women on adoption, but not to organizations involved
in or associated with activities related to abortion, including
abortion counseling and referral. The law was signed by Gov. Frank
Keating (R) in May 2002.

In March, a U.S. District
Court of Appeals reaffirmed a lower court's decision that SOUTH
CAROLINA'S Choose Life license plate is unconstitutional.
The court found that the state is unlawfully discriminating by allowing
only the Choose Life license plate and rejecting a specialty plate
promoting a pro-choice message.

In September,
a U.S. District Court held TENNESSEE'S
Choose Life license plate unconstitutional. The court found that
the state had unlawfully violated free speech by allowing only the
Choose Life license plate and rejecting a specialty plate that promoted
a prochoice message.

Introduced: 5 states
States with further actionPassed at least one chamber: TNVetoed: SD

Enacted: MI and MS

(ENACTED)In June, the MICHIGAN
legislature enacted a new law that significantly limits abortions
by defining a fetus as a \x93legally born person\x94 when any part of
the fetus is outside the woman's body and has shown signs of life.
Under the new law, abortion procedures are allowed only in the case
of life endangerment. It was vetoed earlier in the year by Gov.
Jennifer Granholm (D). After the veto, enough signatures were
gathered through a rarely used process called the citizen's petition
that the measure was returned to the legislature for a vote, allowing
the measure to be enacted without the governor's approval.
The new law goes into effect in March 2005.

In July,
a U.S. District Court judge blocked enforcement of MISSISSIPPI'S
law that requires abortions after the first trimester to be performed
in licensed hospitals or outpatient clinics. If enforced, the law
would effectively ban all second trimester abortions, because there
are no hospitals or outpatient clinics that perform abortions after
the first trimester in the state. The law, which had been enacted
in May and scheduled to take effect July 1, is now enjoined pending
further court action.

In March,
the SOUTH DAKOTA legislature
rejected changes to sweeping abortion legislation that had been
recommended by Gov. Mike Rounds (R) when he vetoed the measure;
the legislature's action effectively kills the bill. The measure
as passed by the legislature would have banned all abortions, except
when the pregnancy would either endanger the woman's life or cause
her irreversible physical harm. The legislature had passed the original
version of the measure in February.

In April,
a subcommittee in the TENNESSEE
House rejected a measure that would have placed a constitutional
amendment on abortion on the 2004 ballot. The proposed amendment
would have asserted that the state constitution neither protects
a woman's right to abortion nor requires public funding of abortion.
The ballot initiative had passed the Senate in March.

In January,
a CALIFORNIA state appeals
court upheld a lower court decision dismissing a lawsuit brought
against Planned Parenthood Federation of America on the grounds
that information on its Web site attesting to the safety of abortion
procedures and denying a link between breast cancer and abortion
is false and misleading. The judge ruled that the information on
the Web site is not inaccurate and is protected speech under both
the California and federal constitutions.

Women
Required to Receive State-Directed Counseling:

In May, the ALASKA
House passed a bill that would require a physician to provide counseling
to a woman before performing an abortion. The physician would have
to provide information on the gestational age, the abortion procedure
and the risks associated with it. Additionally, the state would
be required to develop printed materials and maintain a Web site
containing information on fetal development, abortion methods, risks
associated with abortion and with carrying pregnancies to term,
and information on agencies providing childcare assistance or family
planning counseling. The bill would also require abortions to be
provided by physicians only (see above, Physician-Only Requirements).
The bill passed the Senate last year and is awaiting consideration
by Gov. Frank Murkowski (R).

In October,
a FLORIDA appeals court upheld
a lower-court decision finding the state's mandatory counseling
law unconstitutional. The appeals court ruled that the law violates
the privacy clause within the state's constitution, by requiring
a physician to info rm a woman of the risks involved in the abortion
procedure, a description of the fetus and a list of agencies that
could offer info rmation on alternatives to abortion. The court
also ruled that the law is vague because it leaves the physician
with no standards by which to counsel a woman. The law was passed
in 1997 but never enforced.

Requirements
for State-Directed Counseling Followed by a Waiting Period:

In
June, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that ALABAMA
can begin distributing informational pamphlets to women seeking
abortions. In January, the judge had approved a settlement regarding
the state's counseling and waiting period law, which requires that
the state develop informational materials must be distributed to
women 24 hours prior to an abortion. Among other things, the settlement
directed the state to not include material alleging a link between
breast cancer and abortion. In July 2003, distribution of the materials
was enjoined, pending a judicial review to determine the accuracy
of the information.

In March,
ARIZONA Gov. Janet Napolitano
(D) vetoed legislation that would have required a woman to receive
counseling and then wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The
measure, which had included an exception in the case of a medical
emergency, would have required the physician to inform the woman
of the gestational age of the fetus, risks associated with the procedure
and alternatives to abortion. Prior to the procedure, the woman
would have had to certify in writing that she had received counseling.
The legislature had passed the measure in February.

In March,
a committee in the IDAHO House
rejected a measure that would have required a woman to receive counseling
either by telephone or in person, and then wait 24 hours before
obtaining an abortion. The measure would have required the physician
to counsel women on the abortion procedure and provide information
on the gestational age of the fetus, as well as on the medical risks
associated with abortion and with carrying the pregnancy to term.
The physician would also have been required to inform women of the
availability of additional information on a state-developed Web
site. The measure was passed by the Senate earlier in March.

In
June, a federal district court judge blocked MISSOURI'S
law requiring women to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before
obtaining an abortion. This law has been the subject of litigation
since it was enacted in September 2003 over Gov. Bob Holden's (D)
veto. Almost as soon as the law was enacted, a federal district
court judge imposed a temporary restraining order barring its enforcement.
In May, a federal appeals court lifted that order, clearing the
way for the implementation of the law. At that point, Planned Parenthood
of Missouri announced that it would pursue the case in state court
and asked the original district court judge to enjoin enforcement
in order to permit the suit to proceed; that request was granted
in June.

In March,
the OKLAHOMA House passed a
measure that would require a woman to receive state-directed counseling
and then wait 24 hours prior to having an abortion. The measure
would require the physician to inform the woman in person or over
the phone of the medical risks associated with abortion and carrying
the pregnancy to term, the gestational age of the fetus and the
availability of additional information on a state-developed Web
site. The measure would allow an exception in the case of medical
emergency, life endangerment or threat to the woman's physical health.
The legislature has now adjourned for the year.

In
September, a U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction
blocking enforcement of an OHIO law that would
have limited the provision of mifepristone by requiring physicians
to adhere to the precise terms of the FDA approval, which bars them,
for example, from altering the dosage or administration even if
done in light of new scientific evidence. In addition, the law would
have precluded an exception to protect the woman's life or health.
The law had been scheduled to take effect on September 23.

Parental
Consent Requirements:

In July,
a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down IDAHO'S
law that requires parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion.
The court ruled that the law\x97which includes exceptions in cases
of abuse, neglect or medical emergency\x97is unconstitutional because
the definition of medical emergency included in the law is too narrow
to adequately preserve the health and life of the minor. Despite
the ruling, the law remains in effect pending further court action.

In February,
the MICHIGAN legislature failed
to override Gov. Jennifer Granholm's (D) veto of a measure to amend
the judicial bypass provisions of the state's existing parental
consent statute. The measure would have outlined specific factors
that a judge must consider when ruling on a minor's request, including
familial dependence, school attendance, academic performance, life
experiences and the circumstances of the pregnancy, as well as the
reasons for seeking an abortion and for wanting a judicial bypass.
The current law specifies only that a judge consider the minor's
maturity when ruling on a minor's request. The measure had passed
the legislature in January.

Parental
Notification Requirements:

In November,
FLORIDA voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing
the legislature to require an unemancipated minor to notify a parent
before obtaining an abortion. The amendment gives legislators the
authority to permit minors to seek court approval in lieu of notifying
a parent. The amendment was added to the ballot by the legislature
in April
; a challenge aimed at removing the measure
from the ballot was blocked by a U.S. District Court judge in August.

In February,
the GEORGIA Senate passed a
bill that would amend the state's parental notification law. The
measure would require a parent or guardian to show proof of identification
when accompanying a minor seeking an abortion. Alternatively, the
physician would be required to inform one parent of the minor's
intent, as well as the location of the abortion facility, at least
24 hours prior to the procedure. If the parent being notified indicates
either that he or she already knew of the minor's intent or has
no wish to consult with the minor, the waiting period may be waived.
The bill would allow the minor to petition for a judicial bypass.
The legislature has now adjourned for the year.

(ENACTED)
In March, NEBRASKA Gov. Mike
Johanns (R) signed legislation to eliminate the requirement that
school districts inform students that a parent must be notified
before a minor obtains an abortion. Currently, each district must
provide this information to students, along with information about
the process for obtaining a judicial bypass. It passed the legislature
earlier in March.

In November,
a federal appeals court upheld a district court decision striking
down a NEW HAMPSHIRE law that
requires parental involvement in a minor's abortion. The law required
a pregnant minor to notify one parent at least 48 hours prior to
an abortion. The judge ruled that although the law included a judicial
bypass and an exception in the case of life endangerment, it violated
the state's constitution by failing to include a health exception.
The measure was signed by Gov. Craig Benson (R) in June 2003.

In November,
a federal appeals court reversed a district court decision striking
down OKLAHOMA'S parental involvement
law. Although the law does not explicitly require a minor seeking
an abortion to inform her parents or to have their consent, it does
allow physicians to be held liable for the costs of any subsequent
medical treatment that may arise from an abortion that was performed
without parental knowledge or consent. In 2002, a federal district
court found the law unconstitutional because it does not provide
exceptions for medical emergencies or include a judicial bypass.
However, the appeals court's decision to overturn that ruling was
based on procedural rather than substantive grounds: The court held
that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the challenge.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to reconsider its decision.

Parental Involvement-Other:

Introduced: 1 state
States with further action

Passed
at least one chamber: MO

In April,
the MISSOURI House passed a
measure that would prohibit a person from helping a minor obtain
an abortion without parental consent, regardless of whether the
procedure was performed in or out of state. In addition to imposing
criminal penalties, the bill would allow a minor or her parent to
sue any person who fails to comply. The legislature has now adjourned
for the year.

In
July,
a U.S. District Court judge struck down MISSOURI'S
ban on \x93partial-birth\x94 abortion procedures. The judge ruled that
the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to preserve
the health of the woman. The law, which has been blocked since its
enactment in 1999, remains enjoined, although the state may exercise
its right to appeal the decision.

In May, a
federal district court judge temporarily blocked enforcement of
UTAH'S newly-enacted "partial-birth"
abortion ban. The suit claims that the law is unconstitutional because
it lacks a health exception—thereby allowing the procedure
only when the woman's life is threatened—and is potentially
applicable to a range of abortion procedures. The law allows the
"father" of the fetus and the pregnant woman's parents to sue for
financial damages. The ban, which had been signed by Gov. Olene
Walker (R) in March, was blocked
the day it was scheduled to go into effect.

In February,
a federal District Court judge permanently enjoined VIRGINIA'S
ban on "partial-birth" abortion that had been enacted last year.
The judge ruled that because of the vagueness of the law's definition
of the procedure being banned and the absence of a health exception,
the measure did not meet the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court's
2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart.

In October,
a U.S. appeals court upheld a MASSACHUSETTS
law that creates a buffer zone around abortion clinics and prohibits
\x93counseling\x94 or protesting within this area. The court ruled that
the law, which requires antiabortion protesters to stay at least
6 feet away from clinic employees and patients and establishes an
18-foot protest-free zone around the clinic, is constitutional and
fairly enforced. The measure was passed in 2000 and is currently
in effect.

(ENACTED)
In March, UTAH Gov. Olene Walker
(R) signed a measure permitting public funding of abortion when
the woman would suffer irreparable physical harm as a result of
the pregnancy. The state currently funds abortions only in cases
of life endangerment, rape and incest. The Senate passed the measure
in January;
the House passed it in February.

Introduced: 7 states
States with further actionCommittee action: NHPassed at least on chamber: AK

Enacted:
OH

In May, the
ALASKA House passed a bill
that would reiterate the state's current law that limits the performance
of abortions to physicians. This limitation is a part of a larger
measure (see above, Counseling)that had passed the
Senate last year and is awaiting consideration by Gov. Frank Murkowski
(R).

(ENACTED)
In June,
OHIO Gov. Bob Taft (R) signed
a measure that permits Mifepristone to be provided only by physicians.
The measure also requires physicians to submit a written report
to the state medical board on any complications that result from
a woman's having taken Mifepristone. The bill, which had passed
the Senate in May
and the House last year, will take effect in September.

(ENACTED)
In May, MISSISSIPPI Gov. Haley
Barbour (R) signed a measure to require a physician to file a written
report with the Health Department regarding any patient treated
for complications resulting from an abortion. The law will require
the physician to report the cost of treatment and whether it was
billed to private or public insurance. The law, which had passed
the House in March
and the Senate in April,
goes into effect in July.

(ENACTED)In March, SOUTH DAKOTA
Gov. Mike Rounds (R) signed legislation expanding the information
physicians are required to report about abortion procedures. Specifically,
the measure requires physicians to report the woman's marital status,
educational status and race, and whether she is Hispanic. Additionally,
the physician will be required to include the age of the "father"
if the woman is younger than 16; the measure specially permits this
information to be used in any subsequent legal proceedings. Current
law requires reporting of only the abortion method used, gestational
age and reason for the procedure. The law will go into effect in
July. The Senate passed the measure in January; the House passed
it in February.

Introduced: 25 states
States with further actionCommittee action: MA, NE, NY and OKPassed at least one chamber: CT, LA and MSEnacted: NJ and SD

In November,
CALIFORNIA voters adopted a
ballot initiative establishing a $3 billion fund to finance stem
cell research over a 10-year period. The measure authorizes grants
for research designed to develop a cure for or substantially mitigate
diseases and injuries. The law specifically prohibits funding research
involving human cloning.

In
May, the CONNECTICUT
House approved a measure that would establish a task force to study
the ethical implications of cloning and stem cell research. The
legislature has now adjourned for the year.

In
June, the LOUISIANA House approved
a measure that would ban human cloning and research that uses human
embryos, but specifically excludes in vitro fertilization and adult
stem cell research. The Louisiana legislature addressed several
measures to ban human cloning this session. In May
the Senate passed two separate measures, one to ban cloning and
stem cell research and one to ban only cloning.

In April,
the MISSISSIPPI Senate removed
all the operative provisions of a measure to ban human cloning that
was passed by the House in March;
the Senate's action has effectively killed the bill for the year.

(ENACTED)
In January, NEW JERSEY Gov.
Jim McGreevey (D) signed a bill that bans cloning to produce a human
being, but permits the use of human embryonic stem cells for therapeutic
research purposes, including research involving somatic cell nuclear
transfer, a process often associated with cloning. The law requires
research to be reviewed to ensure that the project follows federal
regulations. In addition, it requires physicians providing infertility
treatment to inform patients that they have the option of donating
unused embryos for research. The law went into effect upon signing.

(ENACTED)
In February, SOUTH DAKOTA Gov.
Mike Rounds (R) signed a bill that bans human cloning, stem cell
research and a commonly used procedure that places the nucleus of
one cell into a different one. The law goes into effect in July.

In April, the MINNESOTA
House approved restrictions on the distribution of state family
planning funds to agencies that use other funds to provide abortion
services. State-funded family planning providers would have to be
completely independent from organizations that provide abortions.
Specifically, the organizations would have to be separately incorporated
and could not share a name, medical or nonmedical facilities, equipment,
expenses or employee wages. Under the measure, an organization that
receives state funds for family planning could provide nondirective
counseling on pregnancy options but could not provide marketing
materials about abortion services or advocate on behalf of abortion.
Organizations that receive Title X funds may provide any and all
services as required by federal statute or guideline. The bill is
awaiting consideration in the Senate.

(ENACTED)In July, PENNSYLVANIA
Gov. Edward Rendell (D) approved a state budget that includes the
same abortion-related restriction on state family planning funds
that has been enacted every year since 2002. This restriction requires
programs (except hospitals) that receive state family planning funds
to be financially and physically separate from organizations that
provide abortions or abortion-related services. The measure allows
programs that use federal Title X family planning dollars to provide
nondirective counseling and referral services as required by federal
law. The measure had passed both legislative chambers in May.

In October,
the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a decision
upholding CALIFORNIA'S contraceptive
coverage statute, ending the legal challenge to the law. Under
the law, an employer may be exempt from the mandate if it's purpose
is to inculcate religious values and if it primarily employs and
serves people with the same religious values and is considered a
church under federal law. Catholic Charities of Sacramento filed
suit, arguing that the exemption in the statute is too narrow.
In March, the California Supreme Court upheld the exemption, which
prompted Catholic Charities to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In May, the
ILLINOIS House approved a measure
that would add a refusal clause to the state's contraceptive coverage
law. The state has a longstanding, comprehensive refusal clause
that permits an insurer to refuse to cover a medical service because
of an objection explicitly articulated in its governing documents.
The House-passed measure would allow a religious or religiously
sponsored insurer or employer to refuse to cover contraceptive services
or supplies even in the absence of a specific provision in its governing
documents. If enacted, this would expand the options available to
religious employers by allowing them to purchase insurance excluding
contraception through a secular insurer. The bill is awaiting action
by the Senate.

In
June, the NEW JERSEY Senate
approved a measure that would require insurance plans that provide
coverage of outpatient prescription drugs and supplies to cover
contraceptive prescription drugs and supplies. The measure would
exempt religious employers whose objection is based on bona fide
religious beliefs. Employers utilizing the exemption must provide
employees with a written notice of their refusal to provide contraceptive
coverage. The bill applies to insurance plans designed for the individual,
group and small-employer markets. The measure is awaiting action
in the Assembly.

In August,
WISCONSIN Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager
issued a formal opinion requiring health insurance plans provided
by employers and state colleges and universities to cover prescription
contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs. Lautenschlager
held that failing to provide contraceptive coverage violates state
law prohibiting sex discrimination and cited similar rulings under
federal law by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and a federal district court in Washington State.

Offering
Emergency Contraception Services to Sexual Assault Victims:

In April,
the HAWAII Senate passed a
measure that would require hospital emergency rooms to offer written
and oral information on emergency contraception to women who have
been sexually assaulted and to provide emergency contraception to
these women on request. The bill would also require individuals
caring for women who have been sexually assaulted to receive training
on emergency contraception. The bill, which had passed the House
in March 2003, is now pending before a conference committee. (A
measure with the same intent was vetoed last year by Gov. Linda
Lingle (R) because it did not include a refusal clause; the current
measure also does not include a refusal clause.)

(ENACTED)
In August,
ILLINOIS Governor
Rob Blagojevich (D) signed into law a measure amending the state's
existing requirement that hospital emergency rooms provide information
on emergency contraception to women who have been sexually assaulted.
The new law allows advanced nurse practitioners and physician assistants
who are acting under the aegis of collaborative practice arrangements
with physicians to prescribe emergency contraception to sexually
assaulted women in emergency rooms. The measure, which passed the
Senate in March
and the House in May,
takes effect immediately.

In
June, the MASSACHUSETTS Senate
passed a measure that would require health facilities to offer written
information on emergency contraception to women who have been sexually
assaulted and to provide the medication to these women on request.
This provision is part of a larger measure (see below, Collaborative
Practice ), and is awaiting consideration in the House.

In October,
the NEW
JERSEY Senate passed a measure that would require
hospital emergency rooms to offer medically accurate and objective
written and oral information about emergency contraception to women
who have been sexually assaulted and to provide emergency contraception
to these women on request. The bill would both require individuals
caring for these women to receive training on emergency contraception
and would direct the state to put a process in place for ensuring
that hospitals comply with all requirements. The bill is pending
before the assembly.

Allowing
Pharmacists to Provide Emergency Contraception without a Prescription:

(ENACTED)
In March, MAINE Gov. John Baldacci
(D) signed legislation to allow pharmacists to provide emergency
contraception when acting under collaborative practice agreements
with individuals permitted by state law to prescribe medication.
The measure requires pharmacists to undergo specific training and
to provide patients with a fact sheet that will be developed by
the state's pharmacy board. The law will go into effect in July.
The legislature passed the measure in February.

In
June, the MASSACHUSETTS Senate
passed a measure that would allow trained pharmacists to provide
emergency contraception without a prescription if acting under a
collaborative practice agreement with a licensed physician. In order
to participate, the pharmacist would need to complete a training
program approved by the public health commissioner. This provision
is part of a larger measure (see above, EC in the ER ),
and is awaiting consideration in the House.

In
June, NEW HAMPSHIRE Gov. Craig
Benson (R) vetoed a measure that would have allowed pharmacists
to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription. The
measure would have required pharmacists to complete a training program
and provide prospective patients with a fact sheet developed by
the state Department of Health. The bill had passed the House in
May and the Senate last year.

Restricting
Access to Emergency Contraception:

Introduced: 1 state
States with further actionPassed at least one chamber: VA

In March,
the VIRGINIA Senate rejected
a measure that would have required minors seeking emergency contraception
to obtain parental consent, except when doing so could have negatively
affected the minor's health. Also, the measure would require health
care providers to inform minors of the potential risks and that
emergency contraception "may inhibit implantation of a live human
embryo." This information would have to have been provided either
in person or by telephone at least four hours before the prescription
was written or by mail 48 hours in advance. The House had approved
the measure in February.

In February,
a committee in the VIRGINIA
Senate rejected a bill that would have banned the provision of emergency
contraception by public universities; the measure had previously
passed the House earlier in the month.

State
Medicaid Family Planning Eligibility Expansions

In
late July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal
agency that administers the Medicaid program, approved MINNESOTA's
application for a waiver to expand eligibility for Medicaid-covered
family planning services and supplies. Under the waiver, men and
woman aged 15\x9650 with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty
level will be eligible to receive family planning services through
the program.

PREGNANCY
& BIRTH

Introduced: 22 states
States with further actionCommittee action: AL, CA, MD, NE and NHPassed at least one chamber: AK, KS and OKEnacted: KY, MS and VAVetoed: IA and WV

In April,
the ALASKA Senate passed legislation
that would allow an "unborn child" at any point in gestation to
be considered a victim of murder and assault. The measure would
not apply to legal abortion and medical treatment or to any actions
taken by the pregnant woman. The legislature has now adjourned for
the year.

In March,
the KANSAS House approved a
measure that would allow an "unborn child," from conception to birth,
to be considered a victim of murder if the pregnancy is ended during
the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, or as the result of a
car accident. The measure would specifically exclude actions by
the pregnant woman and medical treatment, including abortion. The
legislature has now adjourned for the year.

In May, IOWA
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) vetoed legislation that would have allowed
a fetus, at any point in gestation, to be considered a victim of
murder or attempted murder. The House and Senate approved the bill
in April.

In
June, the KENTUCKY Supreme
Court held that a viable fetus is a human being for the purposes
of the state's homicide statute. The decision, which applies only
to a viable fetus, is separate from legislation enacted in February
that allows an \x93unborn child\x94 from the moment of conception to be
considered a victim of murder. That law exempts actions taken by
a health care provider during a legal abortion, fertility procedures
and medical treatment, as well as actions taken by a pregnant woman
that result in the end of a pregnancy.

(ENACTED)
In May, MISSISSIPPI Gov. Haley
Barbour (R) signed legislation that revises the state's fetal homicide
law. The new law allows an "unborn child" at any point from conception
through delivery to be considered a victim of homicide or manslaughter.
(The prior state law had allowed an "unborn quick child" to be considered
a victim of manslaughter. "Quickening" is the point in pregnancy
when the woman first feels fetal movement.) The measure passed the
Senate in March
and the House in April.
The law goes into effect in July.

In March,
the OKLAHOMA House approved
a bill that would allow an "unborn child" from conception through
delivery to be considered a victim under the state's murder statutes.
The bill would exempt legal abortion, medical treatment and any
acts taken by the woman from prosecution. The legislature has now
adjourned for the year.

(ENACTED)
In May, VIRGINIA Gov. Mark
Warner (D) signed legislation that allows a fetus to be considered
a victim of murder. Gov. Warner had attempted to include an exception
for legal abortion but was rebuffed by the legislature in April;
as a result, the new law does not include exceptions. The two measures
that comprise the law signed by the governor had passed each house
of the legislature in February.
The law goes into effect in July.

In March,
WEST VIRGINIA Gov. Wise (D)
vetoed a measure that would have allowed a fetus at any point in
gestation to be considered a victim of murder. Under the measure,
the pregnant woman and the fetus would have been considered two
distinct victims for the crimes of murder, manslaughter and assault.
Legal abortion, medical treatment, actions taken in self-defense
and any actions taken by the woman were excluded.

(ENACTED)In
July, CALIFORNIA Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger (R) signed a measure to amend the state's infant
abandonment law to provide immunity to a person assisting with the
surrender of an infant, except in cases of willful or gross negligence.
The bill passed the Assembly in May
and the Senate in June;
the law goes into effect in January 2005.

In
March, the HAWAII House approved
a measure that would allow an infant younger than 72 hours
to be legally abandoned under certain circumstances. The infant
would have to be relinquished to an employee of a hospital, fire
station or police station; a medical history would have to be provided.
The receiving institution would not inquire into the parent's identity
but could provide information on social services. The legislature
is now adjourned for the year.

(ENACTED)In
July, ILLINOIS Gov. Rod Blagojevich
(D) signed a measure that would amend the state's infant abandonment
law to include police stations among the locations at which an infant
may be abandoned. (He also vetoed an identical measure.)
In March both of these bills had passed the house of the legislature
in which is was originally introduced and in May
each passed the opposite chamber. The bill went into effect
upon signing.

(ENACTED)In July,
MASSACHUSETTS Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R) acting in place of
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) signed a measure that would allow the
surrender of an infant younger than seven days to an employee of
a hospital, police station or fire station. Although the person
receiving an infant would be required to ask for the infant's medical
history and parent's contact information, the parent would not be
required to provide the information. The measure passed the House
in June
and the Senate in July. It goes into effect in October.

(ENACTED) In April, COLORADO Gov.
Bill Owens (R) signed a measure that allows a law enforcement officer
to take a newborn younger than 72 hours into protective custody.
While a court order is generally required if the custody lasts longer
than 24 hours, a court order is not needed if the infant is affected
by substance abuse or exhibits withdrawal symptoms from prenatal
drug exposure. The law will go into effect in July. The Senate passed
the measure in February, and the House passed it in March.

Allowing
Health Professionals to Refuse:

(ENACTED)
In May, MISSISSIPPI Gov. Haley
Barbour (R) signed legislation allowing health care providers—including
pharmacists or other pharmacy employees, counselors, social workers,
health insurers and health care facilities—to refuse to provide
medical services, including counseling and referral, on religious
or ethical grounds. The new law also prohibits the denial of public
benefits, because of a refusal to provide or pay for services. The
bill passed the Senate in March and the House in April.
It goes into effect in July.

In April,
WISCONSIN Gov. Jim Doyle (D)
vetoed a measure that would have expanded the state's existing refusal
clause in two ways. First, it would have permitted nurses and pharmacists
to refuse to provide abortions because of a religious or moral objection.
Second, it would have allowed a refusal to participate in fetal
tissue transplantation or the destruction of human embryos.

(ENACTED)
In May, MISSISSIPPI Gov. Haley
Barbour (R) signed legislation allowing health care providers—including
pharmacists or other pharmacy employees, counselors, social workers,
health insurers and health care facilities—to refuse to provide
medical services, including counseling and referral, on religious
or ethical grounds. The new law also prohibits the denial of public
benefits, because of a refusal to provide or pay for services. The
bill passed the Senate in March and the House in April.
It goes into effect in July.

Allowing
Health Professionals to Refuse:

In April,
the MICHIGAN House approved
a measure that would allow individual medical providers, including
pharmacists, to refuse to provide health care services because of
a moral, ethical or religious objection. Although the measure would
explicitly prohibit an individual from refusing to provide contraceptive
services, it limits that protection to services provided "in advance
of sexual intercourse," thereby permitting a provider to refuse
to provide emergency contraception. The measure is awaiting consideration
in the Senate. (The House also approved a separate measure aimed
at health care facilities—see Allowing Facilities to Refuse.)

(ENACTED)
In May, MISSISSIPPI Gov. Haley
Barbour (R) signed legislation allowing health care providers—including
pharmacists or other pharmacy employees, counselors, social workers,
health insurers and health care facilities—to refuse to provide
medical services, including counseling and referral, on religious
or ethical grounds. The new law also prohibits the denial of public
benefits, because of a refusal to provide or pay for services. The
bill passed the Senate in March and the House in April.
It goes into effect in July.

Allowing
Facilities to Refuse:

In April,
the MICHIGAN House approved
a measure that would allow health care facilities, including pharmacies,
to refuse to provide health care services because of a moral, ethical
or religious objection. The measure is awaiting consideration in
the Senate. (The House also approved a separate measure aimed at
individual health care providers—see Allowing Health Professionals
to Refuse.)

Provisions
Requiring Sex Education:

(ENACTED)
In May, COLORADO Gov. Bill
Owens (R) signed a measure that allows parents to remove their children
from sex education classes. Before any sex education begins, a parent
will receive information about the content of the instruction and
a form to use in order to register their "opt-out." The bill passed
the House in March
and the Senate April.\xA0The
law goes into effect in July.

(ENACTED)In June,
MICHIGAN Gov. Jennifer Granholm
(D) signed legislation to require school districts that offer sex
education to notify parents and provide them with information about
the content of the courses. Parents will also be told about their
right to remove their children from the classes, observe the instruction
and review class materials. The law requires that all sex education
be age-appropriate and gives parents the right to file complaints
if they believe the instruction violates state law. The bill passed
the House in May
and the Senate in June. The law goes into effect in spring, 2005.

(ENACTED)
In May, VIRGINIA Gov. Mark
Warner (D) signed legislation that amends the state's sex education
statute. Under the new law, any sex education provided by public
schools must include information about the prevention of sexual
assault and advise students that victims of sexual assault should
seek general medical care. The bill, which had passed the House
in February and the Senate in
March, goes into effect in July.